The Regulated Community Compliance Project
The Regulated Community Compliance Project (RCCP) focuses on the relationship between government and the regulated community. It was created by Richard Reibstein and Cutler Cleveland in 2004 and has produced work on lead paint regulations and their reception. With funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the RCCP has provided training for over 3,000 real estate professionals on the disclosure rule and related regulations.
The RCCP was established to enhance understanding of protective regulations such as the lead Renovation Rule. It is hoped that this information will provide a picture of whether agencies responsible for health and schools (and/or governors) view the rule as an opportunity: to protect contractors from liability, and to protect children and others from exposure to poisonous lead dusts. The RCCP invites comments on the information provided, including corrections or pertinent additions, but especially relating to the quality of awareness and implementation. The RCCP asks readers to provide suggestions concerning the elements of a high-quality program. The RCCP also asks:
1. is it reasonable to expect that agencies with responsibilities for children’s safety take steps to utilize the opportunities presented by the Renovation Rule, even when they have not received delegation, and even when another agency is more directly responsible?
2. what steps should agencies be taking, or ensuring that others are taking, to maximize protections – for contractors, for those who hire contractors, and for those who may experience exposures that could have been prevented?
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY
The RCCP found that people don’t always recognize what a serious problem lead can be, nor that it is relatively easily preventable. Its work has demonstrated that when they receive information about how lead is harmful, how harm can be avoided through right to know disclosure, and how reducing lead exposure and complying with the law benefits all parties, not just those directly affected by lead, they frequently change their perspective concerning lead and lead paint rules, and say they are more likely to take disclosure requirements seriously. Read the reports of the RCCP.
Use of New Lead Poisoning Prevention Law
In 2010 a new regulation went into effect requiring that when paint is disturbed in pre-1978 housing or “child-occupied facilities”, that it be done in manner termed “lead-safe”. This regulation [1], many years in the making, can help prevent incidents of lead poisoning, many of which are caused by the generation and dispersion of lead-contaminated dusts while preparing or removing painted surfaces containing lead paint. Because it is hard to know without testing if a surface contains lead, once commonly used in paint, the regulation employs a presumption that lead is present, unless testing proves that it is not.
In 2013, students at Boston University, mindful of the potentially tragic consequences of lead poisoning, sent questions concerning the rule to governors and agencies responsible for health and schools in each state. The mechanism created by Congress gave each state the option of adopting the rule, but even if a state does not choose to administer the rule on its own, it may choose to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or take actions to educate the public about its existence. It is expected that simply telling people about the rule would have a preventive effect. Those covered by the rule might adopt lead-safe practices because they become educated, or to avoid liabilities. Informing potentially affected residents of their rights to live in lead-safe environments would increase demand for contractors who do not leave poisonous residue behind. Do-it-yourselfers would be less likely to repaint or renovate their homes in an unsafe manner. An important consideration relating to the law, pertinent to current concerns about regulatory burden, is that the costs of compliance are consistent with good practice. The rule requires that dusts be contained and workplaces be left clean, conditions that customers might expect of any responsible contractor.
What the students found was that there is tremendous variability among the states. Some have ”taken delegation” of the law (enabling them to enforce it) and have engaged in significant educational and inspectional activities. Some responses indicated concern for regulatory burden on businesses, rather than the prevention of lead poisoning. Some failed to respond, even though letters were sent to governors as well as health and schools agencies, and repeated attempts were made to ensure that states knew a compilation of responses would be made public.
To view the responses to the 2013 survey, click here:
In 2014, considering this variety of commitments from state governments, a new set of BU students decided that issuing a summary report containing their own judgments of the adequacy of state responses was fraught with difficulties. They asked what they could do to generate greater attention to the potential for an adequate response, protective of the public health, preventive of unnecessary poisonings, without injecting into the discussion the matter of their own subjective opinions? This is a question that pertains to many areas of policy research.
The students decided to conduct a survey of lead policy experts concerning their opinions. Each student identified experts throughout the country, and asked them a series of questions about what a good state program should be. Some of the questions asked repeated the questions asked of states the year before, and some went beyond. The results of this work have been published here on the BU Regulated Community Compliance Project website.
To view results of the 2014 survey, click here:
Finally, the students then took the rankings of the experts of the importance of program components that had been included in the original queries made to states, and used them to produce comparative weightings of the responses of the states. A graphic presentation of the results of this, showing which states told us they are implementing these features, judged most important by experts, is here.
This research has produced two important results. One is a readily understandable summary of what experts consider to be key actions that states should be taking to make use of the new lead poisoning prevention law, to protect children and others from the very serious impacts of exposure to lead dusts. The survey of experts shows that experts feel that states should be taking steps to inform both the regulated and the potentially affected communities about the Renovation rule, states should use enforcement, and states should have the information they need about lead poisoning rates. The other important result is the finding that there is very wide variability concerning state implementation of these actions. We hope that this research will be of some use in the shaping of policy to reduce unnecessary exposures to lead dusts, as the Renovation law intends.
2013 Survey Responses with Updates
Update: In 2014, Boston University students recontacted state officials to inquire if there had been changes or updates to their previous responses – 10 states sent updates.
Original: In 2013, Boston University students wrote to the governors and agencies responsible for health and schools in each state to ask a set of questions about awareness and implementation of the new Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, which provides an opportunity to enhance the protection of children from exposure to toxic lead dusts. The students also wrote to each Environmental Protection Agency region to ask similar questions about tribal nations. Here are the survey questions:
Governor letter Health agency chief letter School agency chief letter
It is clear that some states are making more use of the opportunity than others. Some have taken delegation of the rule and are actively enforcing, some have not taken delegation but are informing the regulated community and referring cases, some simply responded that it is a federal rule, and some did not respond. Although some EPA regions have made significant efforts to communicate to tribes about the rule, the agency could not report on whether tribes are making use of it. Here are the responses to the survey. Analysis of the results is ongoing and we welcome any questions, comments, or suggestions concerning how responses should be assessed. Please write to rreibste@bu.edu or call (617) 358-3366.
States with Authority to Administer the Renovation Rule (as of April 8, 2014)
| Alabama Delaware Georgia Iowa Kansas Massachusetts Mississippi |
North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island Utah Washington Wisconsin |
States without Authority to Administer the Renovation Rule (as of April 8, 2014)
Alabama
Summary of Response: from E. Perry Taylor, State School Architect, Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Department of Public Health could obtain such a list from the Board of Education and the Department of Human Resources if required. Due to limited resources the state’s RRP program has been focusing on the home renovation industry (contractors) and home owners (more than 90% of regulated facilities). Schools and daycare facilities have received information about RRP regulations through News Releases, the website, public hearings, notices and letters, publication in the Alabama Legislative Monthly, extensive ad campaigns, workshops and disseminated pamphlets.
Conducts onsite inspections? Yes. State regulations require an RRP project notification must be submitted no later than 7 days prior to the onset of work. On-site inspections are carried out while the project is in progress if the project period allows adequate time to inspect.
Checks documentation? If the project period does not allow adequate time to inspect, the state follows up with necessary record keeping and documentation inspection at the renovator’s office.
Requests information from administrators? Yes, the state requests proof of compliance with the RRP regulations from the administrator of the facility.
Taken any enforcement actions? “Yes. We have taken numerous enforcement actions including issuing Notice of Violations, Cease and Desist orders, and warrants.”
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Data provided shows a decline of about 9% from 2010 when the RRP program was implemented to 2012, based on a blood lead level of 10 µg/dL which triggers case management. A total of 40,445 children were screened in 2012. “Our RRP program has only been implemented for approximately 2 years, so we are on a learning curve, and the data is still being developed…we feel overall reduction is based on a combination of” state childhood lead poisoning programs, lead abatement, RRP regulations and the federal Real Estate Disclosure law.
Other activities? Speaking at seminars, holding health fairs, providing exhibitor booths at conferences. Partnership with other facility regulatory agencies, for example the Alabama Contractor License Board, Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board, Alabama Code Officials and municipalities’ building permit offices to perform RRP surveillance and monitoring. There is also an 800 hotline for tips and complaints. The state also issues letters of inquiry for renovation activities. The Department of Education responded that it encourages all schools to minimize lead-based paint hazards. Since 2009 it has sent each year about 25 administrators of schools built before 1978 to annual training courses hosted by the University of Alabama that include information about lead-based paint and the RRP rule. The University has also provided information about the rules at meetings of the Alabama School Plant Management Association, “attended by over 150 school facility maintenance personnel, each year since 2010.” Fourteen school maintenance personnel have completed EPA- or Alabama-approved certified renovator training. Since 2010, the University has provided low-cost lead-based paint inspections in Alabama’s public schools, targeted towards areas of pre-1978 school buildings occupied by children under 7. Eight school systems, encompassing 36 schools or school areas have had inspections; 25 had at least one component with lead-based paint, eleven had none. “Of note is that usually, where there is lead-based paint in a school building, it is found on very few components relative to the total number of occupants.” Of 7,646 school facility components tested only 109 components (1.4%) were found to have lead-based paint.
Alaska
Arizona
Summary of Response: from Diane Eckles, Chief, Office of Environmental Health, Arizona Department of Health Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information, conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken enforcement actions, any change in incidence? No.
Other activities? “The Arizona Department of Health Services does not have any regulatory authority to conduct activities with regard to the RRP rule. Contractors must follow EPA rules.”
Arkansas
Summary of Response: from Lori Simmons, MS, Environmental Epidemiology Section Chief, Arkansas Department of Health; and Tom W. Kimbrell, Ed.D, Commissioner of Education, Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information, conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken enforcement actions, any change in incidence? A list of schools is available from the Arkansas Department of Education and a list of daycare facilities is available from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Facilities built prior to 1978 and schools for children under six would need to be identified from the larger list. The state has plans to contact the applicable schools and day cares to inform them about the Lead Abatement rule, but hasn’t yet done so.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? For the Lead Abatement rule, the department of health does have authority.
Taken any enforcement actions? To date, ADH has not needed to take any enforcement actions (i.e. penalties) against Lead Abatement rule violators.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Data are not yet complete enough to make that determination.
Other activities? ADH tracks reported Blood Lead Levels. For children’s BLLs of 20µg/dL or higher, ADH will provide an in-home assessment. Literature is sent to families of children with BLLs less than 20µg/dL but greater than 5µg/dL. ADH provides educational outreach regarding the potential risk of lead-based paint to other stakeholders as well. Following site-inspections for Lead Abatement, ADH will provide follow-up letters with referrals to EPA regarding the RPP rule, if relevant. The Department of Education replied that it does not have a way of knowing whether schools are ensuring compliance, but notes that the Department of Health has posted a link to a list of licensed certified companies and individuals, and that schools are required to use the list. “Arkansas Code Annotated (Section) 6-27-2401 defines the requirements that only certified and licensed companies and individuals perform abatements for lead-based paint. The lead-based paint program rules provide for application, third party examinations, and training in this area.” The Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation does not know if schools have personnel present when cleaning verifications are performed, or are visually inspecting work as it is proceeding to verify that actions have been taken to contain any dust that may be generated. However, “As a result of this survey and the research done to answer the survey questions, the Division through their custodial and maintenance inspection program has now established a line of communication with the ADH lead-based paint program and will work with ADH to communicate directly with schools and their administrators. Division personnel will also incorporate into their regular inspections of public schools an awareness of the issue and work with ADH as needed.”
California
Update received in 2014: from William C. Hale, R.E.H.S., Chief of Lead Hazard Reduction Section, California Department of Public Health.
Checks documentation? In
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Yes. The rates of childhood lead poisoning cases have been declining in
Other activities? The Department of Public Health has worked in concert with EPA to provide information to contractors and public regarding the federal RRP rule. “While
Colorado
Summary of Response: from Rick Fatur, Lead/CFC/Certification Unit Supervisor, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? Mailings periodically conducted to all the elementary schools, pre-schools and day cares in the state, which have included information about the rule.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken enforcement actions? None, contact EPA (specific contact information was provided).
Any change in incidence of poisoning? None known related to the rule but because CDC recently lowered the action level the new definition of poisoning has lead to an increase of children now considered to have lead poisoning.
Connecticut
Summary of Response: from Francesca Provenzano, MPH, CHES, RS; Health Program Supervisor, Lead and Healthy Homes Program,
The Connecticut Department of Public Health receives funding from the EPA to help enforce the RRP. The state did not seek authorization to directly administer the rule and does not directly enforce its provisions.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? Yes. “Public schools and child daycare facility operators are aware of the RPP Rule and have received information from either the EPA of the CT DPH on the specifics of the rule. We have also developed print materials for distribution to child daycare facility operators describing the CT DPH lead paint hazard evaluation and control requirements.” DPH provided the EPA with a list of superintendents for all public school districts so that the EPA could mail information on the rule to all administrators. It also assisted with creation of this content. DPH licenses daycare facilities, and has more stringent requirements than the EPA with regard to lead-based paint hazards in these facilities. Daycare centers built before 1978 except for family day care facilities must hire a licensed professional to carry out a lead inspection of their facilities before they can become licensed or relicensed. If a daycare licensing specialist identifies visible deteriorated paint at a family daycare facility a comprehensive inspection must be carried out, all identified lead hazards must be remediated by a certified firm and existing intact lead-based paint surfaces managed, and a local health inspection is necessary for a letter of compliance. Information about designations as a pre-1978 property, inspection results, remediation and compliance information are maintained in a database.
Conducts onsite inspections? Not actively monitored by DPH or local health departments for schools. Work performed in pre-1978 daycare facilities is closely monitored by the local department of health under the state’s strict daycare rules described above.
Checks documentation? School facility personnel and local health departments are expected to review RRP certification credentials and training status of individuals carrying out lead-safe work practices in school and daycare facilities. CT DPH staff review documentation of contractors, if requested. Recordkeeping requirements of contractors who perform work at the facilities is not “actively” reviewed.
Requests information from administrators? Relevant information is requested from daycare facilities, but is not “actively” requested from school administrators, but will respond to complaints by requesting such information.
Taken any enforcement actions? Noncompliant contractors are referred to EPA for enforcement action. “There is a systematic referral process that we use to communicate with EPA staff. The EPA has taken action against contractors and companies identified by the CT DPH through this referral process.” DPH collaborates with EPA on conducting compliance site visits.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “In reviewing the data, there is a decrease in the number of children poisoned”. In 2010 there were 504 children with levels above 10 µg/dL compared to 434 children in 2011. “The incidence rates for each year have declined, particularly for children diagnosed with blood lead levels at or above 15 µg/dL.”
Other activities? Under a grant agreement DPH collaborates with EPA on building awareness regarding the rule and providing technical assistance to contractors.
Delaware
Update received in 2014: from Dorothy Kingsley, Management Analyst III, Office of Healthy Environments
“As of March 14, 2014, Delaware is authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer and enforce the lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, previously administered by the federal government.” The official press release can be found here: http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/pressreleases/2014/leadpoisoning-040814.html.
Summary of Response: from Bill Leitzinger, Administrator, Office of Healthy Environments, Health Systems Protection,
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? To become licensed in
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, taken enforcement actions? Concerning violators of lead abatement rules, EPA has authority to enforce the RPP and is in the best position to respond to the questions.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The incidence of lead poisoning has substantially decreased due to a number of coordinated efforts including lead environmental hazard reduction activities,” the lead abatement program, mandatory blood-lead level testing at or about 12 months of age for all children, and “strong public and health provider outreach and education programs.” The impact of the RRP program alone is difficult to isolate from all of these efforts, but in 2000 approximately 2% of children under six had a blood-lead levels at or above 20 µg/dL, and “Today, less than one percent of children under six have rates at or above 10µg/dL.”
Other activities? While the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) does not maintain such a list, the Secretaries of DHHS and the Department of Education co-chair a Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Advisory Committee, which promotes cooperation and the exchange of information among state agencies “working to eradicate childhood lead poisoning. Both agencies are aware of lead risks in older buildings and the precautions required to prevent potential exposure during renovation and abatement projects.” The agency that licenses day care facilities is also a member of the Advisory Committee. Delaware “strongly supports the RPP program administered by the EPA.” Through funding provided by the EPA in 2012, DHSS designed and implemented a statewide “Lead-Safe Delaware” bi-lingual media campaign (see www.leadsafedelaware.org). The URL was used in print, radio and website ads and public service announcements. The campaign was designed to raise the regulatory community and public’s awareness of the dangers of renovation in pre-1978 homes and the requirements of the RRP program and resulted in substantial increases in requests for information from contractors and the public. “Delaware focused on both contractors and the general public to ensure that renovation firms are aware of the RPP requirements and Delaware consumers have the information they need to make sound choices when hiring renovators.” Delaware’s “goal is to eliminate lead poisoning and we continue to work daily to prevent lead exposure.”
Florida
Summary of Response: from Brian Fox, M.A, Policy Analyst/Surveillance Systems Coordinator, Bureau of Epidemiology, Division of Disease Control and Health Protection, Florida Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? No centralized list of schools with children less than six and daycare facilities built before 1978.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement actions? No. Without a state-run RRP program, the Florida Department of Health does not have monitoring, compliance or enforcement authority to inspect work sites for compliance. The Florida CLPPP program established stakeholder work-groups to bring together health professionals, lead-safety advocates, RRP trainers and industry professionals to discuss lead poisoning prevention and to draft legislation that would create a state-run RRP program. The state was unable to pass legislation to run a separate RRP, and continues to rely on the EPA for monitoring and enforcement. The Department of Health’s central office provides EPA-approved education and outreach materials by request and program data is available on its website. “During the course of the stakeholder group meetings, many contractors and RRP trainers noted that an increased EPA presence in monitoring and enforcement throughout
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The FDOH has not seen a change in the incidents of lead poisoning that can be attributed to the federal implementation of the RRP rule.”
Other activities? The state developed education and outreach materials for the county health departments to distribute to at risk populations and on request. County health departments across the state have been encouraged to work on a local scale to inform parents and school boards about the RRP rule.
Georgia
Summary of Response: from Mike Rowland, Facilities Services Director, Facilities Services Unit, Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? This has generally been considered a local responsibility.
Does your agency have a way of knowing whether these facilities are ensuring compliance? No.
Have these administrators been provided with a list of companies certified as lead-safe or information on how their own employees can be certified and trained? No such information has been provided by the Unit.
Are they required to either use the list or certify and train their employees? No such requirement exists from the Facilities Service Unit or the Department of Education.
Have these administrators been provided with instructions on how to ensure whether lead-safe practices are being implemented, such as obtaining a copy of the documentation required of contractors that they have been following the requirements of the law; being present when the “cleaning verification” step is performed, allowing them to determine if they think cleaning is adequate, and/or visually inspecting work as it is proceeding, to verify that actions have been taken to contain any dusts that may be generated? Since compliance with this regulation is a local matter, the Facilities Service Unit has no way of determining the answer to this question.
Has your agency taken action to prevent the spreading of lead dusts at schools with children older than six, or are any such actions planned? No.
Hawaii
Summary of Response: from Jeffery M. Eckerd, Program Manager, Indoor & Radiological Health Branch, Hawaii Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? No. “The State’s Department of Human Services regulates and licenses child care facilities in
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Yes, if complaints are received. “We will also inspect lead-based paint abatement projects” (for which the state is authorized).
Taken any enforcement actions? No, because not authorized by EPA to enforce the RPP rule.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “We have not seen significant change in the number of lead-poisoning incidents since the RRP rule has gone into effect.”
Idaho
Summary of Response: from Jim Vannoy, MPH, Program Manager, Environmental Health Program,
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? No.
Have they received information? Not sure.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “No, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare does not have a lead program. Any compliance with the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule is under HUD and/or EPA.”
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Not known.
Illinois
Update received in 2014: from Kim Collins, Project Manager, Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “As far as licensed day care centers, there was a concerted effort approx. 5-10 years ago to routinely distribute lead information material to DCFS child care licensees and applications—I remember the pamphlet distinctly because it was called “Get the Lead Out!” We still may be distributing this in some areas.”
Does your agency have a way of knowing whether these facilities are ensuring compliance? “We have licensing standards that address areas being free of lead paint, but not directly abatement issues.”
Have these administrators been provided with a list of companies certified as lead-safe or information on how their own employees can be certified and trained? Are they required to either use the list or certify and train their employees? “No.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “No”
Indiana
Update received in 2014: from Mike Mettler, Director, Environmental Public Health Division at Indiana State Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? No.
Have they received information? No.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Yes, yes, and only in the course of an inspection.
Taken any enforcement actions? Yes, but no schools.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Yes, it is declining.
Iowa
Summary of Response: from Kane Young, Department of Health; and from the Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? No, the Department does not keep lists of schools and daycare facilities that are pre-1978. The Department does work with the Department of Education and the Department of Human Services to disseminate information.
Have they received information? Yes, these facilities have received information regarding Iowa’s lead-safe renovation rules.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? The Department has authority to perform onsite inspections, and responds to tips and complaints, and has received them including schools and daycare facilities, and has conducted follow up investigations. The Department has checked documentation and requested information from administrators associated with tips and complaints that it has received.
Taken any enforcement actions? Yes, the Department takes enforcement actions when it determines that there are violations. Any change in incidence of poisoning?
Yes, the incidence of lead poisoning is continuing to decline in Iowa. The Department has been tracking the prevalence since the early to mid 1990’s when the lead program started and all blood lead tests were required to be reported. The Iowa Department of Education responded that the administrators of schools built before 1978 have received communications designed to direct their attention to the importance of ensuring compliance with the RRP by any contractors or their own employees doing work that disturbs paint. They noted that they do not have a way of knowing whether these facilities are ensuring compliance, and referred to the Department of Public Health in answering the remaining questions.
Kansas
Summary of Response: from Thomas Langer, MPA, Director, Department of Health & Environment, Bureau of Environmental Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “It is required that agencies openly disclose the impacts of any new regulation with local school districts. Discussion about the effect of the RRP rule was had regionally and individually with school districts in the state, likewise private and charter schools were also informed during the promulgation and rule implementation process. As a state agency KDHE has an ongoing cooperative relationship with the Kansas Department of Education and can readily access the contact information for all school districts in our state.” “KDHE monitors the regulated community and uses technology to provide information to the public. Such information includes lists of qualified contractors that are trained and licensed to perform work.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “KDHE takes a cooperative approach to regulatory enforcement that encourages and rewards compliance and promotes the activities of business. In that spirit KDHE has taken enforcement action against willfully noncompliant entities but only as a last resort. It is to everyone’s advantage that KDHE work with Kansas business and not against it. This is the driving reason why KDHE chose to implement and enforce this provision of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) as opposed to requesting the EPA to enforce this rule in a punitive fashion in our state.”
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The complex environmental health issue that is lead poisoning persists in Kansas. The number of incidents where the lead intoxication is the result of improperly performed home or building renovation, repair or painting in Kansas is declining. KDHE participates in the national Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (EPHT) and publicly reports the incidents of lead poisoning in our state on a routine basis.”
Kentucky
Summary of Response: from Stephanie Mayfield Gibson, MD, FCAP, Commissioner, Department of Public Health; and Terry Holliday, Ph.D, Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? Yes. “The agency maintains a listing of all schools in the state because we inspect them. We inspect day cares with food services, but the Office of Inspector General inspects all licensed day cares in the state and would therefore have that complete listing. We do not distinguish between schools that have children under the age of six and other schools.”
Have they received information? “If the schools have received information about the RRP Rule, it did not come from our office.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement actions? “Our agency has not conducted any of the listed activities” because the state has not adopted the rule, EPA is currently responsible for any compliance and enforcement issues regarding the rule.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? The number of children with “actual” lead poisoning (BLL above 15µg/dL), decreased from 171 cases in 2009 (prior to the implementation of the RRP rule) to 105 cases in 2011.
Louisiana
Summary of Response: from
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? The Louisiana Healthy Homes and Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (LAHHLPPP), which “is responsible for monitoring the blood lead levels of all children under six years old who are tested for lead and for performing environmental investigations for children who have blood lead levels >15 μg/dL…does not maintain a list of schools or daycare centers that were built before 1978. However, if a child under six has a lead level that requires an investigation, anywhere that child spends at least 10 hours per week (including schools and daycare centers) is investigated.”
Have they received information? “LAHHLPPP, through funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, has provided information to contractors” on the rule. “Between October and November 2012, 1,378 contractors in the
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement actions? “LAHHLPPP does not perform on-site inspections on renovations, monitor documentation of contractors or any other activities to determine compliance. LAHHLPPP has no authority to take any enforcement against violators” of the rule. “However, if a structure is determined to be the source of lead poisoning and the recommended remediation steps are not taken, the structure is posted as an unsafe dwelling for children in accordance with LAC 51.IV.109.” The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health “Sanitarian Services (through Title 51: State Sanitary Code http://doa.louisiana.gov/osr/lac/books.htm has permitting and enforcement authority when it comes to lead paint regulations in public schools, public head start program facilities, and state-run child daycare centers. Sanitarian Services would be able to give you the number of currently permitted child daycare centers for the state (http://dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/610). The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality provides information on lead professional certification, training and rule-making (http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2884/Default.aspx).
Maine
Summary of Response: from Eric Frohmberg, Manager, Maine Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, CDC/DHHS; and Stephen Bowen, Commissioner of Education, Maine Department of Education.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? No. “The majority of lead poisonings in
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? When we receive complaints we refer individuals to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “Lead poisonings in
Other activities? Outreach and subsidized training have been provided for contractors and landlords who do their own work.
Maryland
Update received in 2014: from Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment.
“In 2012
At this time the Department’s current regulatory authority is limited to abatements and work required to be performed on pre-1950 residential and rental properties (Affected Properties) in compliance with Subtitle 8, Title 6 of the Environment Article – “Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing”. Beginning January 1, 2015, the universe of the of Affected Properties under Subtitle 8, Title 6 of the Environment Article will increase to also include residential rental dwelling units built between 1950 and prior to 1978. Because the residential use of lead based paint was not banned until 1978, the inclusion of residential rental units built between 1950 and prior to 1978 seeks to further
Summary of Response: from Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment.
“
Massachusetts
Summary of Response: from Suzanne K. Condon, Associate Commissioner, Director, Bureau of Environmental Health; David McGrath, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Early Education and Care; and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Department of Labor Standards has worked with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (for pre K) and the Department of Early Education and Care (for day cares) “to provide directed information.” A “Train-the-Trainer” training was provided to 24 Family Child Care professional staff, including outreach on the state and federal regulations. “These trainers will be providing training to Family Child Care educators.” Licensed facilities (not family day care) must have a letter of compliance with the Massachusetts Lead Law. “DLS is interested in providing both child ‘take home’ information as well as reminders to the facilities of their maintenance and training requirements for work that may fall under the regulations. DLS waives the fees associated with the license for work done on premises by their trained employees.” The Department of Early Education and Care adopted regulations that ensure group day care facilities are in compliance with state deleading requirements and “that family day care facilities be free from chipping of peeling paint.”
Conducts onsite inspections? Yes, DLS is actively conducting field visits of work that falls under the new law. The Department of Health’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP) “developed standard forms and protocols for licensed lead inspector to use when called in to inspect/reinspect on RRP projects. To date 750 RRP assessments conducted by licensed lead inspectors have been reported to CLPPP.” The Department of Health makes referrals to DLS for enforcement, and both agencies and local boards of health “state-wide respond to complaints of dangerous renovation work. Health education staff inform callers of the safe work requirements needed and in some instances refer situations to our environmental code enforcement staff for follow up.”
Checks documentation, requests information from administrators? “Yes, this is a routine part of inspection/investigation for field visits.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “DLS will request information from property owners and managers as a part of investigatory conduct if requested information is not readily provided by contractors.” “See a list of enforcement actions is posted at www.mass.gov/dols.”
Any change in incidence of poisoning? In FY 12 there was a “very slight increase in the number of children identified with elevated blood levels as compared to fiscal year 2011, however there is no data to suggest that this increase is correlated in any way to the implementation of the RRP rule.”
Other activities? “DLS has PSA’s and billboards and is currently working with building departments to address the regulatory requirements prior to hazard creation. DLS speaks with professional groups, associations, contractor organizations, and distributes outreach materials at tradeshows and exhibitions to promote awareness of DLS requirements and Lead-Safe Renovation. DLS works jointly with other state agencies to provide renovation information pertinent to each agency. The Department of Health’s CLPPP worked with DLS to conduct multiple trainings with lead inspectors and local boards of health.
The Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) also responded that it “enforces compliance with the Department of Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program through its licensing activities.” General information and reference to Department of Health and DLS regulations regarding lead paint is incorporated in three separate sections of its licensing regulations. EEC stated that it ensures facilities comply with the state’s lead inspection regulations. “Early Education and Care licensed facilities must be aware of and comply with the (state lead inspection) regulations. The Department through its licensing component checks for evidence of a lead paint inspection and compliance with (the state lead inspection rule) at every licensing study. If a licensed facility is not in compliance EEC will require compliance prior to issuing a license.” Facilities must use licensed inspectors and must provide certification that it is performed according to standards.
Michigan
Update received in 2014: from James S. Sinnamon, Director, Michigan Department of Human Services, Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing.
“The child care center rules in Michigan were updated effective 1/2/2014. In these updated rules, we are requiring a lead hazard risk assessment on ALL child care centers built before 1978, regardless of when the center was licensed. We have given centers 3 years from the effective date of the rules to obtain the lead hazard risk assessment. The rules also exempt centers housed in school buildings and serving only school age children from this inspection requirement. The new rule is R400.8380(8); the link to the document is http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/Child_Care_Center_Rules_419095_7.pdf?20140324095234.”
Summary of Response: from James A Copeland, Compliance Officer, Department of Community Health, Healthy Homes Section; and from Jim Sinnamon, Michigan Department of Human Services, Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information, conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement actions? “
The Michigan Department of Human Services responded, noting the response is applicable only for school buildings that are licensed under the child care licensing for four-year-old preschool programs (Great Start Readiness Programs) and before/after school programs. “Licensing regulations require schools built prior to 1978, issued an original license after 12/2006 AND licensed for preschool or younger children to have a lead assessment. R400 5940(8) – Child care centers licensed after the effective date of these rules (12/7/2006) located in structures built before 1978 shall have a lead hazard risk assessment performed by a certified lead risk assessor. Any lead hazards identified shall be addressed as noted in the lead hazard risk assessment report. The results of the assessment shall be kept on file in the center. Rules will be changing next year to require this lead assessment for preschool programs previously grandfathered in. Buildings housing only before/after school licensed programs are not required to obtain this inspection for licensing. Licensing consultants review the documentation during onsite inspections. The list of certified lead assessors is posted on the web (link provided). Licensing provides technical assistance to programs requiring this inspection, but as the lead assessors are certified by the State of
Minnesota
Summary of Response: from Sandy Pizutti, Commissioner’s Executive Aide, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? MDH does not have a list but the “Department of Education (DE) maintains a database for all pre-1978 schools and includes dates of construction and square footage for each facility. The database does not provide information on analytical data for lead in paint, lead in dust, or lead in soil or information regarding lead testing from renovation projects or in-place management of lead paint on facility components. It is not clear as to whether or not individual schools or school districts in
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? The Department does not have authority to determine compliance with RRP regulations. “USEPA Region Five is responsible for ensuring adherence with the RRP and PRE in
Taken any enforcement actions? “It is possible that USEPA Region Five has taken enforcement action in
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “No. The blood lead surveillance system (BLIS) at MDH is designed to determine large population trends in
Mississippi
Update received December 23, 2014: from Dennis Kelly, Environmental Administrator, Lead Program, MDEQ
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? Information concerning the RRP regulations has been provided to all public schools in the state and to contractors who regularly work in schools (identified because of the AHERA regulations). When AHERA inspections are conducted, the school administrators are further reminded of the RRP regulations. MDEQ has also been advised that the major architect firms that schools use (identified by the Department of Education) are also requiring contractors comply with the RRP regulations.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? The Department of Health’s Child Care Licensing Division has in it’s regulations that every child care facility must conduct a risk assessment of any building that was built before 1965. MDEQ has conducted training of the licensing officials as to how to read a risk assessment report and the RRP requirement that only certified renovators may work on the facilities unless the paint has been tested to prove that it is lead free. A major outreach effort was conducted by MDEQ in late 2009 through 2010 involving meetings at child care facilities that included parents of children at the facilities explaining the RRP regulations and lead-based paint poisoning concerns.
Taken any enforcement actions? MDEQ is the agency in Mississippi with the regulatory authority to conduct inspections, audit training courses and assess penalties. Although penalties have not been assessed with great frequency, we do conduct inspections and training audits. When violations are found, the primary concern is the cleanup of any contamination. We are on site within 24 hours of receiving a complaint or tip and proceed from there. The most common violation is a non-certified individual conducting regulated work, typically not yet disturbing lead-based paint.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? As with most states, there has been a decrease in the number of children that have been diagnosed as lead poisoned. Whether it is due to the RRP regulations or just better home maintenance, it cannot be determined. The best way to accelerate the decline in childhood lead poisoning, is through public awareness. Better public awareness would increase public demand for certified contractors and in turn fewer cases of lead poisoning.
MDEQ has a list of currently certified firms on its website (www.deq.state.ms.us/leadpaint). There is also directions on how to become certified as well as contact information.
Missouri
Summary of Response: from Mark Allan Van Zandt, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
“Implementation of the program in
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “Information relating to the (RRP) regulations are provided through the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Service website http://health.mo.gov/safety/leadlicensing/index.php.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, ensuring compliance? “The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not granted monitoring authority relating to this mandate. Mo. Rev. Stat. (Sections) 177.011 and 177.031 (2000) provide that title and control of school property is vested in the district in which the property is located.”
Have these administrators been provided with a list of companies certified as lead-safe or information on how their own employees can be certified and trained? Are they required to either use the list or certify and train their employees? The EPA’s regulations require that individuals affected by the rules “will have to go through EPA and not the state level for training and approval as a certified renovator. A list of approved companies can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/flpp.searchrrp.training.htm.”
Taken any enforcement actions? The Department of Health posts Lead Abatement Work Standards. A link to a manual is provided concerning how the state identifies and responds to violations of these standards.
Montana
Summary of Response: from Carol Ballew, PhD, Senior Public Health Epidemiologist, Department of Public Health and Human Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) does not maintain a list of day care centers or primary schools serving children younger than six years by year of construction.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement actions? “DPPHS does not have any regulatory or enforcement functions with regard to the training, certification, or compliance of renovators under the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (40 CFR Part 745, Subpart E), nor do our Department of Environmental Quality or Department of Labor and Industry. In
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “Childhood lead screening in
Nebraska
Summary of Response: from Joseph M. Acierno, M.D., J.D., Chief Medical Officer, Director, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
“Thank you for including the State of
Nevada
New Hampshire
Summary of Response: from Luann Speikers, Environmental Lead Specialist, Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Bureau of Public Health Protection Services, Division of Public Health Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “The State of
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken enforcement? No, not an RRP authorized state.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “NH hasn’t looked specifically at the connection of the implementation of the rule and the incidence of lead poisoning.”
Other activities? The State’s Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program is doing outreach to hardware stores. Using EPA funds we printed a brochure that provides notification and education about the RRP rule and who needs to be certified.”
New Jersey
Summary of Response: from Mary O’Dowd, Commissioner, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “The New Jersey Department of Education would have a list of schools with children less than age 6 years. The NJ Dept. of Children and Families has a list of the childcare centers (link provided)….I am neither sure if either agency documents the age of the building nor if either agency has distributed information about the EPA RRP Rule. A website you may find useful: http://www.state.nj.us/health/healthyschools/index.shtml.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Not the program area of the Department of Health.
Taken any enforcement actions? “
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “This is my specific program area. We have not seen an increase in lead poisoning cases and have experienced a slow and steady decrease over the past decade plus.”
New Mexico
Summary of Response: Heidi Krapfl, MS, Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau Chief, Epidemiology and Response Division, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “The New Mexico Department of Health does not have a list of schools with children less than six and daycare facilities built before 1978. We do not have knowledge if they received information about the rule. The state of
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The surveillance data do not yet indicate a reduction in rate of lead poisoning. The Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau receives all blood-lead tests, as any blood-lead level is a notifiable condition in
New York
Summary of Response: from Carl T. Thurnau, PE, Director of Facilities, Education Department.
“The New York State Education Department is responsible for public school construction project review and approval. We also issue the appropriate building permit and certificate of occupancy at the completion of the work. We require evidence of compliance with Lead safe practices for all capital projects undertaken in NY’s public schools. We do not have jurisdiction over non-public school facilities in this state and cannot comment on their practices. “For projects that disturb lead painted surfaces, the specifications must indicate that appropriate protocols are in place to comply with law. State law requires the professional architect or engineer to properly supervise the work. At the completion of the project and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, that same professional must certify to this office that the project was properly completed in accordance with the appropriate codes as well as the approved contract specifications. “…the publicly bid specification must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The architect of record assists districts in ensuring that the contractors are properly certified and trained for the work required by the approved specifications….the licensed professional architects and engineers ensure that these functions are carried out on behalf of their school district clients. Regarding routine maintenance projects, individual districts either hire properly trained workers for specific problems or have their own employees certified for maintenance situations. This office provides oversight, guidance, training seminars, and newsletters at regular intervals throughout the year on numerous topics including lead safe practices. Our agency has not taken any action regarding children older than 6 regarding lead dusts, and have no current plans to.”
North Carolina
Summary of Response: from Ed Norman, Department of Health and Human Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? Yes, lists are accessible, and the facilities have received information about the rule. “The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Division of Non-Public Schools have, in the past, provided a mailing list that included only those non-public schools with a pre-school, child care, kindergarten or first grade…The Division of Child Development (DCD) worked with our program to distribute information on RRP to licensed child care facilities. The Health Hazards Control Unit (HHCU) administers the RRP Program…since HHCU proposed a North Carolina RRP Program to the regulated community in 2008, child cares, pre-schools and elementary schools all have been included in mass mailings. Several meetings and presentations were provided to DPI and DCD early on in the process. Mailings included: -introduced the EPA program requirements and NC’s intentions to have a state-run program; -announced the proposed rules’ public comment period and public hearing; -announced the passage of temporary rules; -announced the passage of permanent rules; and -health & safety bulletin included article to all NC licensed child care facilities North Carolina by rule adopts EPA’s rule changes as they occur. When an EPA rule is revised, HHCU routinely informs the regulated community (via email to the heads of applicable departments, professional trade associations, boards and agencies), with the understanding that the message will be forwarded to their distribution list as appropriate. The Department of Public Instruction, NC Parent Teacher Association, and the Division of Child Development (child care licensing board) are all included in these emails. In addition, there are asbestos rules that apply specifically to K-12 schools, and HHCU regularly conducts outreach to schools about asbestos. Since 2008, HHCU has included RRP information in the annual asbestos newsletter which is sent to all public (including charter) and non-profit, non-public schools. HHCU has also included an RRP informational session during the asbestos training offered to schools annually.”
Conducts onsite inspections? “Yes, the program does not have a project notification requirement, but we do perform onsite inspections. We use other mechanisms to target inspections such as asbestos project removal notification, AHERA inspections, local code permits, and tips and complaints that provide visibility to school locations undergoing work. Part of our inspection protocol is to ask for required project documentation. The contractor is asked because the RRP Rules place the responsibility for compliance on the contractor rather than the building owner or facility administrator.”
Checks documentation? Yes, documentation is required by program rule to be on-site, it is checked during inspections. Most schools require RRP certification documentation be provided by the contractors as part of bid documents. Our website lists NC certified firms.
Requests information from administrators? The RRP Program Rules place the responsibility for compliance on the contractor, and not the building owner or facility administrator.
Taken any enforcement actions? Yes, Enforcement/Compliance actions include Warning Letters, Notice of Noncompliance, and Notice of Violation.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? Yes, incidents of lead poisoning have steadily decreased over time in NC although correlation of decreased childhood lead poisoning as an outcome of the RRP Rules would be hard to substantiate. Nonetheless, the use of the required renovation work practices and trained workers will reduce the likelihood that lead poisoning occurs solely as a result of renovation activities. Historically, more than 70% of childhood lead poisoning investigations in North Carolina have identified lead-based paint hazards (typically, paint in poor condition) as a source of exposure.
Other activities? Extensive Outreach-newspaper advertisements/notices-9 major English/9 Spanish language papers, informational updates to certified firms, direct mailers to NC Licensed General Contractors, mailers to single family dwellings (~650K homes), numerous meetings and presentations to regulated industry/homebuilders/remodelers association, NC Department of Commerce (CDBG) and many others.
North Dakota
Summary of Response: from Sandi Washek, Division of Air Quality. LBP Program Coordinator, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) does have access to a list of school buildings that were built prior to 1978. Information was sent to the schools prior to the RRP rule being finalized in 2009.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? “NDDH does not do any investigation or enforcement of schools for RRP since we do not have authorization for this section of the rule.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “All complaints and enforcement actions are passed on to
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The NDDH took on the LBP abatement regulation from EPA in 2001. Prior to 2001, less than 1,000 children were being blood lead tested in ND. As of 2011, the State has increased the number of children blood lead tested to over 4,000 children per year ages 6 years and younger. With the increased number of children being blood lead tested, NDDH has also increased the number of children found with elevated blood lead levels. As of 2012, ND is still increasing the number of children tested for and found elevated. The State is looking at these increased numbers due to various reasons. 1. Better education of doctors showing lead poisoning is not just a ‘big city’ issue, but also can occur in rural
Ohio
Summary of Response: from Daniel E. Holston, R.S., Chief, Environmental Abatement Section, Division of Quality Assurance, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978? Received information? The OH Department of Education maintains a listing of schools in
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators, taken any enforcement activities?
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The incidence and prevalence of childhood lead poisoning have been decreasing annually for decades. However, we are not able to attribute this reduction in whole or in part to the RRP rule without a thorough analysis controlling for numerous environmental, social, financial and housing factors and other intervention efforts. Factors in addition to the RRP rule that may have contributed in part to the decreasing prevalence of lead poisoning are the implementation of a childhood lead poisoning prevention program in 2004, which includes investigation of children with lead poisoning and the ability of the Director of Health to issue orders to control identified lead hazards, as well as the Ohio Department of Health’s administration of the U.S. EPA abatement program since 1998.”
Other activities? “
Oklahoma
Summary of Response: from the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The state’s Department of Environmental Quality has received delegation to conduct the Renovation program.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “The Capital Improvement Section of the OK State Department of Education posted information for schools on the new Lead-Based Paint Renovation Requirements on their website on April 22, 2010…Licensure of daycare facilities is a function of the OK Department of Human Services.” The Department of Environmental Quality requires certification of all individuals and firms who offer/and or perform lead-based paint services. The department of health does not have regulatory authority over schools or daycare facilities “for lead abatement.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? No.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “Childhood blood levels have trended downward in Oklahoma over the past decade similar to the downward trend in national data. Data is not available to determine if there is a causal relationship between this downward trend and implementation of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule.”
Oregon
Summary of Response: from Brett Sherry, Program Manager, Healthy Homes and Schools Program, Center for Health Protection, Oregon Health Authority.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the state Construction Contractors Board (CCB) jointly implement the RRP rule; the OHA enforcing requirements for schools and childcare facilities, and the CCB enforcing the requirement that anyone who “works for compensation in any construction activity involving improvements to real property…obtain a CCB license.” The state’s department of education has a list of schools online, and a list of those with children less than six can be downloaded, but the age of the facility is not available to the public. OHA has worked with the department of education to ensure that schools received information about the rule. The state has 198 school districts and the majority have at least one school built before 1978. The department of education agreed to send an email alert on the new lead paint regulations, written by OHA, to every school district superintendent, and the information was forwarded to school principals and maintenance staff. The Oregon Child Care Division, which licenses child care facilities, shared a list with the OHA and over 10,000 brochures were mailed or distributed to child care facilities and schools. Child care facilities built before 1978 also received an RCCP brochure during inspections conducted by county health departments and the Child Care Division. In addition, numerous education and outreach events attended by county health department inspectors, child care regulators, school safety officers, and others have included presentations on the RRP rule.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? “Onsite inspections are conducted upon receiving a complaint, referral or observing a worksite in the normal course of field work. Both OHA and CCB perform onsite inspections while work is ongoing…Both agencies respond to 100% of complaints received and performed onsite inspections within 48 hours of receiving the complaint.” Both agencies check for documentation, including valid renovator certifications, company or agency certifications and Lead-Based paint Renovators license, required record-keeping concerning notifications to owners and occupants, on-the-job training records, and adherence to work-practice standards. The records also could be requested when in-house maintenance staff conduct the work.
Taken any enforcement actions? Notices of noncompliance, warning letters and civil penalties “have been issued against violators of the RRP rule.”
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “The incidence of childhood lead poisoning has steadily declined” in Oregon (and nationally, “due largely to the phasing out of lead in gasoline and legislation restricting the amount of lead in household paint and other consumer products”). “Prior to RRP rule implementation there was a high likelihood that contractors performing maintenance and renovation work would not take appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of contaminated lead dust. However, we cannot directly attribute the lower incidence of elevated blood levels in Oregon to the RRP rule implementation. From 2000-2004, 43% of the investigations for childhood lead poisoning in Oregon found that remodeling was the source of exposure. The RRP rule regulates the 95% of lead-based paint work that had not been previously regulated. Enforcement of the RRP rule will ensure the widespread use of lead-safe work practices in homes and child-occupied facilities and potentially reduce childhood lead poisoning in Oregon.” The number of confirmed elevated children (> 10 μg/dL and less than 18 years of age at the time of the confirmatory test) declined from 63 in 2006 to 30 in 2012.
Other activities? The program “continues to mail out educational materials to increase awareness of training and certification requirements. The program distributes information on the RRP Rule to realty agencies, child care facilities, Head Start programs, housing agencies, contractors, government agencies, property owners, renters and other stakeholders upon request or through targeted mailings. Over 5,000 of the RRP brochures were sent to foster care homes in Oregon that were built before 1978.”
Pennsylvania
Update received in 2014: from Bryle Zickler, Program Administrator, Pennsylvania Department of Health.
“Aside from our responses, Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry is the “oversight” agency that ensures that contractors are certified. From the perspective I work from, being lead abatement, contractors are to have the appropriate certifications and training for lead abatement through Labor and Industry (among other rules set by the EPA, etc.). They are also required to notify Labor and Industry before they begin a lead abatement job (I’ve attached the actual form in case you might find this useful). When lead abatement work is to be done using our grant money, the vendors must first receive approval through our office to use specific contractors. We review listings Labor and Industry provides to ensure that the requested contractors are up-to-date on their trainings and certifications.”
Rhode Island
Summary of Response: from Bob Vanderslice, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “Daycare facilities built before 1978 were inspected and made lead safe with funds from a Supplemental Environmental Project in 1997.” (A Supplemental Environmental Project is a project that a party found in violation of the law conducts in addition to paying a penalty). “Since then, new daycare facilities must get a lead safe certificate and have it renewed annually to maintain their license. This requirement has been successful at creating and maintaining awareness of lead rules and regulations.”
Conducts onsite inspections? Yes.
Checks documentation? Yes. “In addition, all building permits issued in RI have a space for entering the lead license number of the contractor responsible for the work. Cities/towns vary in whether they verify license information.”
Requests information from administrators? No.
Taken any enforcement actions? Yes.
Any change in incidence of poisoning? “RI adopted RRP requirements a decade prior to EPA’s rules becoming final. Lead poisoning rates (i.e., incidence rates for venous or confirmed fingerstick samples with levels of 10 ug/dl deciliter or greater) have steadily declined since these rules were implemented in 2001. Note that rates were steadily declining before then, as well.”
South Carolina
Update received in 2014: from DeLisa Clark, Director, South Carolina Department of Education.
“Agency regulations concerning construction and renovation of facilities are governed by the latest edition of the South Carolina School Facilities Planning and Construction Guide (Guide). The Guide requires schools to comply with SCDHEC regulations on the handling and disposal of hazardous material including lead.”
Summary of Response: from ML Tanner, Healthy Homes Specialist and EPA Lead Risk Assessor; Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Department of Health and Environmental Control.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “School facilities fall under the purview of the SC Department of Education, and regulations related to child daycare facilities fall under the SC Department of Social Services.
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “
Any change in incidence of poisoning? No change in the number of incidents of lead poisoning has been observed since the RRP Rule went into effect.
South Dakota
Tennessee
Summary of Response: from Rachel Heitmann, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program Director, Division of Family Health and Wellness, Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “The Tennessee Department of Health inspects for general sanitation at daycares and school cafeterias. Our agency does not have a list of schools or daycares built before 1978. However, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation did extensive outreach to schools regarding this rule in 2009, 2010, and 2011.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? “The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation conducts inspections on behalf of the EPA when requested.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “The EPA conducts all enforcement activities in
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “Since the rule went into effect in 2008, there has been a decrease in the incidence of lead poisoning in
Texas
Summary of Response: from Peter Tadin, Coordinator, Environmental Lead Program, Environmental Hazards Group, Department of Health Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) contacted the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to see if they had such a list, and DFPS responded that their agency regulates and maintains a list of childcare facilities, but does not have information regarding the year the facilities were built, and does not have a list of public and private schools with young children. DSHS contacted the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which replied that they had a list of schools that “could possibly be provided addressing” the question about schools in
Taken any enforcement actions? The EPA determines compliance with RRP rule.
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? There has been a slight decrease in elevated blood levels in children under 6 tested from 2010 to 2011, from 0.6% to 0.5%.
Utah
Summary of Response: from Robert Ford, Manager, Air Toxics, Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos Section, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality.
“In your letter to Governor Herbert, you ask the question why the State of Utah accepted delegation of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The Utah Lead-Based Paint Program was established in 1998 substantially adopting the federal Lead-Based Paint Abatement Regulations by reference and we have been administering a program since that time. The Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule seemed to fit well within the existing Utah Lead-Based Paint Program and that program has been included since early April 2010.”
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The lead-based paint program does not have a specific list, but has provided information about the RRP rule “to all school districts in the State of Utah.”
Conducts onsite inspections? “One of the challenges with the USEPA Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule is there is no project notification component which makes the opportunity for onsite inspections at the time work activities are being performed very difficult. The Utah Lead-Based Paint Program has performed onsite inspections of abatement activities for nearly 100% of all notified abatement projects.”
Checks documentation? The program “has been conducting random records requests with companies that are both certified and not certified…where there is a possibility that we may review records of contractors that perform regulated activities in schools with children less than six years of age and daycare facilities built before 1978, we have no specific program to target contractors working in those facilities.”
Requests information from administrators? The program “has authority to request that information”, but “our agency has not requested that specific information from those facilities to date.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “Yes, we have written 17 Warning Letters and 2 Settlement Agreements where civil penalties have been assessed.”
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? The DEQ program “does not gather or otherwise have access to this information.” The Utah Department of Health responded that “the prevalence of child blood lead has been steadily declining since 2005 until 2009. Since 2009 there has been a slight increase in prevalence. We do not have evidence that this is associated with school renovation. See: http://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/view/BloLeaChild.Year.html.”
Vermont
Update received in 2014: from Patrick Brown, Technical Contact – AHERA, Lead, and Licensing, Vermont Department of Health, Asbestos, & Lead Regulatory Program.
Vermont has an online registry to collect voluntary compliance statements as well.
Summary of Response: from Lori Cragin, PhD, State Epidemiologist and Division Director for Environmental Health.
“Our lead safety law requires landlords and child care operators to perform “Essential Maintenance Practices” (EMPs) on target rental housing and childcare facilities built before 1978”.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “
Conducts onsite inspections? “If the Health Department receives a tip or complaint, we would conduct an onsite inspection. Additionally, the EMP training classes for owners, operators and contractors certifies them to inspect and stabilize interior and exterior lead-based paint surfaces.”
Checks documentation? ”The Department of Health reviews all incoming EMP compliance statements for completeness and accuracy as they are received.”
Requests information from administrators? The Vermont Lead Law compliance statement submittal requirements are not applicable to schools, only child care facilities. If the Health Department received a tip or compliant of a school they might request information from them.
Taken any enforcement actions? “Yes, there is a ticketing and fining procedure, although voluntary compliance is the goal.”
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “Since
Virginia
Summary of Response: from Nancy K. Van Voorhis, MPH, Project Director, Lead-Safe Virginia Program, Department of Health.
“
Washington
Summary of Response: from the Department of Health.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “Our agency does not have a list of schools but we did coordinate with our sister agency to let those folks know about the rule before it went into effect.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation? “Yes. We have enforcement officers who are authorized to perform this work.”
Requests information from administrators? “Yes. We have enforcement officers who are authorized to request records and verify this.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “Yes. We have levied fines against both contractors and property managers.”
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “Unknown.”
Washington , DC
Summary of Response: from Pierre Erville, District Department of the Environment.
“We have a local law that requires use of lead-safe work practices whenever paint in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities is being disturbed. We have sent several messages to District residents, via the District’s dozen or so community listservs, to the following effect: ‘Please remember that if you are thinking about hiring someone to conduct renovation work on your pre-1978 home, your contractor must use lead-safe work practices. It’s the law! See our website for more info.’ Since the use of lead-safe work practices is one of the fundamental tenets of RRP, this is in effect an RRP message as well.”
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “The District Department of the Environment (DDOE) chairs quarterly interagency meetings focused on lead. Meeting participants include representatives of roughly a dozen different District agencies, including the DC Public Schools and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. Both in 2008 and in 2010, DDOE distributed and discussed highlights of the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP). Our handouts included bullet points regarding the consequences of RRP with respect to requirements it entailed for different agencies.”
Conducts onsite inspections, checks documentation, requests information from administrators? Taken any enforcement actions? “The
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “There has been a decline nationwide in incidents of lead poisoning for many more years now than the few years that have passed since RRP has entered into effect! And I would not by any means attribute the significant decline we in DC have witnessed in the past 4 years primarily to RRP. Our lead poisoning prevention program is one of the nation’s most proactive, and we are very visible both on the primary prevention front and on the enforcement front. In 2011, we won a national award for our lead work — a Lead Star Award from the national Lead and Environmental Hazards Association. We also have been very active in recent years in conducting high-visibility outreach on lead, with ads in movie theaters, on the radio and on TV. We also have an active HUD-funded lead hazard remediation grant program. None of these facts has anything to do with RRP, and collectively they are in my opinion the primary cause of the decline in lead cases we have seen over the past 4 years, not RRP which is only seldom enforced in the
Other activities? “We have held a series of discussions with our counterparts at the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), which administers the city’s permitting center for folks who are applying for permits to renovate or conduct demolition/razing activities. We have recommended that they add a requirement to their permit applications, specific to pre-1978 residential projects and to pre-1978 projects impacting child-occupied facilities, that would mandate production of evidence that the applicant is in compliance with RRP. DCRA is still considering this suggestion. “We enforce the required use of lead-safe work practices by contractors. If we get a complaint about potential violations, we send an inspector who can shut the job down if the inspector determines lead-safe work practices are needed but not being used.”
West Virginia
Update received in 2014: from Tammy Potter, Environmental Specialist.
“Currently the State of West Virginia is not overseeing EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP). Therefore enforcement of the RRP program is conducted entirely by EPA, as we do not have the authority. All questions, complaints and tips received are directed to EPA or the EPA website where individuals can report environmental violations. Contractors and individuals who contact our office with questions regarding RRP certification are directed to the EPA Lead-Safe Certification Program.”
Wisconsin
Summary of Response: from the Department of Health Services.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? “Yes, we used lists from the Department of Public Instruction and Day Care licensing Agency to send information out in early 2010 in preparation for the RRP rule.”
Conducts onsite inspections? “Yes, but only when we receive a tip, complaint or referral. There are no project notification requirements.”
Checks documentation? “DHS staff checks for certification of both the individual and the company when conducting inspections.”
Requests information from administrators? “Only as part of an ongoing investigation.”
Taken any enforcement actions? “Yes, there are been 111 RRP enforcement actions since April 1, 2011. The first year DHS staff did mostly on-site education and outreach. 75 actions included monetary forfeitures. Average Forfeiture $977. Number of RRP complaints received: 116.”
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “No data that correlate the RRP program with lead poisoning cases.”
Wyoming
Summary of Response: from Wendy E. Braund, MD, MPH, MSEd, FACPM, State Health Officer and Senior Administrator, Public Health Division.
List of schools and daycare facilities built before 1978, received information? The Wyoming Department of Health “does not have a listing of schools in
Taken any enforcement actions? “The Wyoming State Government (WDH and the Department of Environmental Quality) did not accept primacy for the Lead Renovation Rule; therefore, the WDH does not conduct any of the three activities listed.” (Contact is provided for EPA). “The WDH does not inspect, document or enforce construction activities. This action is conducted by the EPA Region 8 located in
Any change in the incidence of poisoning? “According to the pediatric blood-lead test (BLT) results the WDH Lead Program has received from reference laboratories 1,826 pediatric BLT reports in 2011 with 59 elevated results (3.2%). In 2012, there were 2,184 pediatric BLT reports with 32 elevated results (1.5%), and to date, March 2013, there are 954 BLT reports with 18 elevated test results (1.8%). Whether this drop in elevated BLT results is due to the implementation of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule is unknown.”
The Department of Public Health has worked in concert with EPA to provide information to contractors and public regarding the federal RRP rule. “While
r than�Y,0�2� �r� ildren. The prevalence of children with blood lead levels of 5µg/dL or above decreased from 7.0% in 2007 to 2.6% in 2011.
If you have a question that the RCCP can answer, call: (617) 358-3366 or write: rreibste@bu.edu. For further information on federal lead laws please see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s webpage.
[1] The Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (the RRP or the Renovation Rule); 40 CFR Part 745, Subpart E (Residential Property Renovation, (§§ 745.80 – 745.92)).
